• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ron Paul's Foul Old Newsletters Back in the News

Infamous libertarian opinion molder Lew Rockwell was repeatedly mentioned as being at least partially responsible for some of the most offenisve material.

this from the wikipedia entry on Rockwell

Working for Ron Paul

Rockwell served as Ron Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982.[4][5] He has maintained a working relationship with Paul over the years, as a contributing editor to "The Ron Paul Investment Letter";[6] as a consultant to Paul's 1988 Libertarian Party campaign for President of the United States;[7] and as vice-chair of the exploratory committee for Paul's spirited run for the 1992 Republican Party nomination for president.[8]
In early 2008, libertarian publication Reason published a story discussing several racially charged articles that appeared in the Ron Paul newsletter. The Reason piece asserted that "a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul" had identified Rockwell as the "chief ghostwriter" of the Ron Paul newsletters published from "roughly 1989 to 1994." According to Reason, Rockwell has denied responsibility for the disputed material and has called the accusations "hysterical smears aimed at political enemies."[9]
Click to expand...

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter

Ron Paul doesn't seem to know much about his own newsletters. The libertarian-leaning presidential candidate says he was unaware, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, of the bigoted rhetoric about African Americans and gays that was appearing under his name. He told CNN last week that he still has "no idea" who might have written inflammatory comments such as "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks"—statements he now repudiates. Yet in interviews with reason, a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul—all named the same man as Paul's chief ghostwriter: Ludwig von Mises Institute founder Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr.

Financial records from 1985 and 2001 show that Rockwell, Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982, was a vice president of Ron Paul & Associates, the corporation that published the Ron Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Survival Report. The company was dissolved in 2001. During the period when the most incendiary items appeared—roughly 1989 to 1994—Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters recently unearthed by The New Republic. To this day Rockwell remains a friend and advisor to Paul—accompanying him to major media appearances; promoting his candidacy on the LewRockwell.com blog; publishing his books; and peddling an array of the avuncular Texas congressman's recent writings and audio recordings.
Click to expand...

The idea that Paul himself claims to not know who wrote the material is simply ridiculous on its face.
 
Last edited:
So is Paul's defense. It is that he is completely incompetent as a manager even over his own newsletter. Therefore, we really shouldn't ask Paul his stance on issues at all because Ron Paul himself doesn't actually involve in his own political matters. In fact, not only would it be Ron Paul's staff doing all presidential duties, Ron Paul wouldn't even know who his presidential staff members are. He doesn't actually involve in any language, written or staffing matters himself according to him.

So rather than Truman's "the buck stops here," a Paul presidency, IF you believe Paul's explanation, is a Sgt Schultz presidency: "I do know nothing."

But the real other problem with his denial is his opposition to the Civil Rights Act (anti-racial discrimination), his opposition to the Voting Rights Act (to stop political voting discrimination) and to the MLK holiday - plus his comments on the Civil War - all are entirely consistent with the perspectives of those articles in his newsletter he claims he never saw or read.
 
So Ron Paul flip-flopped on the death penalty.
 
I care about as much about this as Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright, which is to say, not at all.
 
joko104 said:
So Ron Paul flip-flopped on the death penalty.
Click to expand...
Yes, but seeing as Paul is a republican, I have a sneaking suspicion it was because of personal convictions not political gain.
 
Demon of Light

that video you posted says NOTHING about the issue of the racist Ron Paul newsletters.

Why is it here?
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
I care about as much about this as Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright, which is to say, not at all.
Click to expand...

It's much ado about nothing. But haters got to hate.
 
Poor judgement by Paul to not monitor something he sponsored more closely. That being said, it was in the past, and I've seen absolutely no racist tendencies in his legislative or personal past. The guy's about as clean as politicians come.
 
haymarket said:
Demon of Light

that video you posted says NOTHING about the issue of the racist Ron Paul newsletters.

Why is it here?
Click to expand...

Joko suggested his positions on other issues might be indicative of him having such views. The video demonstrates pretty clearly that the claim is bull****. Do you remember that debate when several candidates spoke strongly in favor of profiling? Do you remember who expressed the only clear outrage over the notion? Another case clearly hammering home that trying to smear Paul with allegations of racism is nothing more an empty attempt to suppress his vote.

Media expressed shock at the suggestion that Bachmann hates Muslims, even though she actually has a proven track-record of avoiding her Muslim constituents whenever possible, supports profiling, and makes various comments denigrating Muslim culture.

joko104 said:
So Ron Paul flip-flopped on the death penalty.
Click to expand...

If what Paul did was a "flip-flop" then obviously everyone is a flip-flopper and the attack is meaningless. Can you think of anyone who has always held only one position on every single issue?
 
Last edited:
Demon of Light said:
Joko suggested his positions on other issues might be indicative of him having such views. The video demonstrates pretty clearly that the claim is bull****. Do you remember that debate when several candidates spoke strongly in favor of profiling? Do you remember who expressed the only clear outrage over the notion? Another case clearly hammering home that trying to smear Paul with allegations of racism is nothing more an empty attempt to suppress his vote.



If what Paul did was a "flip-flop" then obviously everyone is a flip-flopper and the attack is meaningless. Can you think of anyone who has always held only one position on every single issue?
Click to expand...

All the video proved to me was the excellent coaching Paul had on how to divert from his actual abysmal record on race in this nation. His invoking Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King as personal heroes when in reality he voted against giving them Congressional medals reeks of hypocrisy. He also stated he would have voted against the 1960's civil rights laws.

The old dog is learning new slick tricks to divert from his true record. No more and no less.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
All the video proved to me was the excellent coaching Paul had on how to divert from his actual abysmal record on race in this nation. His invoking Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King as personal heroes when in reality he voted against giving them Congressional medals reeks of hypocrisy. He also stated he would have voted against the 1960's civil rights laws.

The old dog is learning new slick tricks to divert from his true record. No more and no less.
Click to expand...

Read the link I provided, specifically go to the part about his voting record. It addresses both of the cases. On Rosa Parks he objected to awarding any private citizen a medal paid out of a government fund and suggested instead that members of Congress pay for it out of their own pockets. The MLK issue is an even more classic example of political spin as Paul's vote was purely technical. He voted against having it fixed to a specific calendar date, but previously voted for fixing it to the third Monday of January. Neither of the cases say anything about his attitudes on race.
 
Last edited:
Demon of Light said:
Read the link I provided, specifically go to the part about his voting record. It addresses both of the cases. On Rosa Parks he objected to awarding any private citizen a medal paid out of a government fund and suggested instead that members of Congress pay for it out of their own pockets. The MLK issue is an even more classic example of twisting the truth as Paul's vote was purely technical. He voted against having it fixed to a specific calendar date, but previously voted for fixing it to the third Monday of January. Neither of the cases say anything about his attitudes on race.
Click to expand...

Why did he not object to Boy Scout medals when the power to do that is not in the Constitution either?

And his reasons for stating he would not have voted for the civil rights laws of the Sixties??????????

The man has a reason to be on the wrong side of all racially progressive issues does he not?

And the sheer insanity of his video boast that libertarians cannot be racist is simply beyond absurd.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
All the video proved to me was the excellent coaching Paul had on how to divert from his actual abysmal record on race in this nation. His invoking Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King as personal heroes when in reality he voted against giving them Congressional medals reeks of hypocrisy. He also stated he would have voted against the 1960's civil rights laws.
Click to expand...

I would vote against the civil rights bill on the grounds in violated property rights and the liberty of people like he has said. I would however agree like he does with the protection of rights for minorities. You of course careless forget or are unaware that there is legitimate reasons to vote against that bill that even existed and were used at that time.

The fallacy with you is always there though. If you vote no to my bill, you are racist. A bit childish, but that is all you got hay.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
And the sheer insanity of his video boast that libertarians cannot be racist is simply beyond absurd.
Click to expand...

Libertarians can not be racist. Its that simple, yes it is.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Why did he not object to Boy Scout medals when the power to do that is not in the Constitution either?
Click to expand...

Something else included in the source I provided. In fact, I believe it was a commemorative coin issued by the Mint that was to be financed through private purchases of the coin. His only other vote concerning the Scouts I have seen mentioned was one against removing their Congressional charter, which is essentially just a corporate charter that was quite common for government to issue in the early days of the United States.

And his reasons for stating he would not have voted for the civil rights laws of the Sixties??????????
Click to expand...

He doesn't believe the federal government should dictate the practices of private businesses. On similar ground, Paul has said he would vote for the parts that repealed the Jim Crow laws.

The man has a reason to be on the wrong side of all racially progressive issues does he not?
Click to expand...

Many people happen to consider drug legalization to be a racially progressive issue as it goes right to the heart of one of the main limits to social progress among minority populations today.

And the sheer insanity of his video boast that libertarians cannot be racist is simply beyond absurd.
Click to expand...

It is not really insane as libertarian philosophy, as Paul understands it, is about individualism as opposed to collectivism.
 
Henrin said:
I would vote against the civil rights bill on the grounds in violated property rights and the liberty of people like he has said. I would however agree like he does with the protection of rights for minorities. You of course careless forget or are unaware that there is legitimate reasons to vote against that bill that even existed and were used at that time.

The fallacy with you is always there though. If you vote no to my bill, you are racist. A bit childish, but that is all you got hay.
Click to expand...

It is not voting against a bill that makes you racist Henrin. Its the cumulation of ALL your positions that have anything to do with race that ever come up. So please do not act so shy and meek and pretend its just this one little itty bitty thing. Because it is NOT this one little itty bitty thing.

You and other libertarians always find your reasons to be on the repressive side of civil rights issues.

You know Henrin, you keep coming after me in thread after thread and you end up in a corner with me accepting the gift of your lunch money. So why should this be any different? I have no doubt that you could easily find a reason to justify being on the wrong side of a civil rights bill. At least in your own mind. No surprise there. You would stand with the Southern segregationists, the Dixiecrats and the white power folks.

But is not you and nothing against you personally. Libertarians have been on the wrong side of every civil rights initiative I can think of over the last forty or fifty years. And of course, there always is a "good reason". Just like the South found a "good reason" to fight in 1861. Nah - twans't bout no slaves. So sirree.
 
haymarket said:
You and other libertarians always find your reasons to be on the repressive side of civil rights issues.

Libertarians have been on the wrong side of every civil rights initiative I can think of over the last forty or fifty years.
Click to expand...
War on drugs, Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, Gay Rights, NDAA, Unauthorized acts of war on foreign countries.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
It is not voting against a bill that makes you racist Henrin. Its the cumulation of ALL your positions that have anything to do with race that ever come up. So please do not act so shy and meek and pretend its just this one little itty bitty thing. Because it is NOT this one little itty bitty thing.

You and other libertarians always find your reasons to be on the repressive side of civil rights issues.


You know Henrin, you keep coming after me in thread after thread and you end up in a corner with me accepting the gift of your lunch money. So why should this be any different? I have no doubt that you could easily find a reason to justify being on the wrong side of a civil rights bill. At least in your own mind. No surprise there. You would stand with the Southern segregationists, the Dixiecrats and the white power folks.
Click to expand...

On the repressive side? On the repressive side? Look you ignorant bastard, the respecting of property and liberty has NOTHING at all to do with people merely voting against it for racist reasons. If you can't get your weak little mind around the idea people would vote against the bill for reasons OUTSIDE of race you are a fool and poor teacher and student of history that you so proudly proclaim you taught for 33 years. Can you even grasp the bill included the violation of other peoples property rights? if you can't grasp such an easy concept as doing with your property as you see fit I can't even imagine how you would do on more complex issues the bill brought.

And you never cornered me once. The last thread today I decided to ignore since the request was merely baiting. Baiting me and me simply ignoring an NON argument is not victory, fool.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Libertarians can not be racist. Its that simple, yes it is.
Click to expand...

Then obviously some who claim the mantle "libertarian" are not. Some who claim to be "libertarian" are quite racist.

And I would agree that racism and libertarianism are not compatible philosophies. Just saying that some who claim to be "libertarians" are racist.
 
rocket88 said:
Then obviously some who claim the mantle "libertarian" are not. Some who claim to be "libertarian" are quite racist.

And I would agree that racism and libertarianism are not compatible philosophies. Just saying that some who claim to be "libertarians" are racist.
Click to expand...

I would concur. Many people confused on their lean.
 
Hare said:
War on drugs, Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, Gay Rights, NDAA, Unauthorized acts of war on foreign countries.
Click to expand...

and let me guess.... this is your attempt to pretend not to understand what is meant by civil rights issues?
 
Henrin said:
On the repressive side? On the repressive side? Look you ignorant bastard, the respecting of property and liberty has NOTHING at all to do with people merely voting against it for racist reasons. If you can't get your weak little mind around the idea people would vote against the bill for reasons OUTSIDE of race you are a fool and poor teacher and student of history that you so proudly proclaim you taught for 33 years. Can you even grasp the bill included the violation of other peoples property rights? if you can't grasp such an easy concept as doing with your property as you see fit I can't even imagine how you would do on more complex issues the bill brought.

And you never cornered me once. The last thread today I decided to ignore since the request was merely baiting. Baiting me and me simply ignoring an NON argument is not victory, fool.
Click to expand...

WOAH!!!!! Soembody really got sensitive there. Must have had far more than just one raw nerve exposed.

And you accuse me of baiting!!!! .... lets see now ... in one post

a) ignorant bastard
b) weak little mind
c) you are a fool
d) poor teacher
e) fool

And this from a person who classifies himself as an adult? And all in just five lines no less! When one goes out on a limb such as you just did and then saws it off themselves, not much more is needed to be said.
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
Then obviously some who claim the mantle "libertarian" are not. Some who claim to be "libertarian" are quite racist.

And I would agree that racism and libertarianism are not compatible philosophies. Just saying that some who claim to be "libertarians" are racist.
Click to expand...

I'll give you that. I'll also argue that "progressives" or "social liberals" can be as racist, xenophobic, and ethnocentric as the next person. Take my mother, for instance. She will cry her eyes out after watching Mississippi Burning for the 100th time, yet will condemn ALL Japanese people as conniving, thieving, back-stabbing "nips" (her word, not mine). She'll also stereotype the entire Filipino culture as "money-grubbing" and the entire Muslim culture as fanatical. The greatest liberal president of the 20th century, FDR, brought back to America something that had been abolished more than 70 years prior: slavery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom